KARLOS NOEL ALETA vs SOFITEL PHILIPPINE PLAZA MANILA
GR 228150
Facts:
Karlos Aleta’s parents-in-law (Atty. Bonifacio and Dr. Marilyn) went to Sofitel to check-in together with his children Carlos, five years old, and Mario, three years old. Dr. Marilyn brought the two children to the hotel’s kiddie pool. Mario slipped while stepping into the pool and sustained injuries while Carlos bumped his head and sustained a contusion. Karlos and Dr. Marilyn administered first aid treatment to the kids and then they were brought to the hotel’s clinic. Karlos demanded compensation from Sofitel. It was denied. Four months later, in June 2009, Carlos started having seizures. Karlos filed a Complaint for Damages against Sofitel before the Metropolitan Trial Court. He maintained that the injuries sustained by his children were the result of Sofitel' s negligence and therefore prayed that it be ordered to pay him. MTC dismissed it on the ground that Karlos failed to prove that the injury sustained by his children was the proximate cause of his children's admission at Medical City.
Karlos moved for a recon but the MTC denied it. The RTC affirmed the MTC’s decision. He moved for recon but it was likewise denied. He filed for Petition for Review before the CA but the latter affirmed the RTC’s decision.
Hence, Karlos filed a Petition for Review before the SC seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. He cites Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code and argues
that respondent should be held liable for the injuries. He maintains that the presence of a slide within the pool's premises made it an attractive nuisance, which should have prompted respondent to place more safeguards. He stresses that while warning signs were posted regarding the use of the pool, the same were placed in an inconspicuous place which could not have ensured the safety of its guests.
Issue:
Whether or not Sofitel is liable for the injuries sustained by the children. (attractive nuisance)
Ruling: Yes.
Karlos Aleta’s parents-in-law (Atty. Bonifacio and Dr. Marilyn) went to Sofitel to check-in together with his children Carlos, five years old, and Mario, three years old. Dr. Marilyn brought the two children to the hotel’s kiddie pool. Mario slipped while stepping into the pool and sustained injuries while Carlos bumped his head and sustained a contusion. Karlos and Dr. Marilyn administered first aid treatment to the kids and then they were brought to the hotel’s clinic. Karlos demanded compensation from Sofitel. It was denied. Four months later, in June 2009, Carlos started having seizures. Karlos filed a Complaint for Damages against Sofitel before the Metropolitan Trial Court. He maintained that the injuries sustained by his children were the result of Sofitel' s negligence and therefore prayed that it be ordered to pay him. MTC dismissed it on the ground that Karlos failed to prove that the injury sustained by his children was the proximate cause of his children's admission at Medical City.
Karlos moved for a recon but the MTC denied it. The RTC affirmed the MTC’s decision. He moved for recon but it was likewise denied. He filed for Petition for Review before the CA but the latter affirmed the RTC’s decision.
Hence, Karlos filed a Petition for Review before the SC seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. He cites Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code and argues
that respondent should be held liable for the injuries. He maintains that the presence of a slide within the pool's premises made it an attractive nuisance, which should have prompted respondent to place more safeguards. He stresses that while warning signs were posted regarding the use of the pool, the same were placed in an inconspicuous place which could not have ensured the safety of its guests.
Issue:
Whether or not Sofitel is liable for the injuries sustained by the children. (attractive nuisance)
Ruling: Yes.
There were two slides installed with slopes ending at the kiddie pool. Taking the Hidalgo case into consideration, although the swimming pool alone may not be considered as an attractive nuisance, the kiddie pool's close proximity to the slides formed an unusual condition or artificial feature intended to attract children. In other words, the installation of the slides with slopes ending over the swimming pool's waters makes it an attractive nuisance.
The hotel was duty bound to undertake protective measures to ensure the children's safety. It was their responsibility to guarantee that appropriate safeguards were in place within the attractive nuisance in order to protect children against the injury from unknown or unseen dangers.
Further, by reason of the swimming pool's nature as an attractive nuisance, respondent is duty bound to guarantee that it had installed sufficient precautionary measures to ensure the safety of its guests, particularly the children. The establishment of these safeguards should have prevented the incident. Accordingly, it could be inferred that petitioner's children would not have sustained their injuries were it not for respondent's negligence.
No contributory negligence can likewise be imputed against the children. Children, by nature, are enthusiastically inquisitive towards different places and objects, such as pools with slides. By reason of their "childish instincts and impulses" it is expected that they will be drawn to such places to play, unaware of the dangers present within their immediate vicinity.
While it was established that there were lifeguards at the time of the incident, the lifeguards admitted that they failed to stop the children from using the pool.
Sofitel’s failure to prevent the children from using the swimming pool was the proximate cause of the injuries they sustained. To reiterate, by maintaining an attractive nuisance in its premises, it is respondent's responsibility to ensure that necessary precautions are in place to prevent children from being harmed. Respondent's failure to install the needed safeguards constitutes negligence for which it should be held liable for damages.
The hotel was duty bound to undertake protective measures to ensure the children's safety. It was their responsibility to guarantee that appropriate safeguards were in place within the attractive nuisance in order to protect children against the injury from unknown or unseen dangers.
Further, by reason of the swimming pool's nature as an attractive nuisance, respondent is duty bound to guarantee that it had installed sufficient precautionary measures to ensure the safety of its guests, particularly the children. The establishment of these safeguards should have prevented the incident. Accordingly, it could be inferred that petitioner's children would not have sustained their injuries were it not for respondent's negligence.
No contributory negligence can likewise be imputed against the children. Children, by nature, are enthusiastically inquisitive towards different places and objects, such as pools with slides. By reason of their "childish instincts and impulses" it is expected that they will be drawn to such places to play, unaware of the dangers present within their immediate vicinity.
While it was established that there were lifeguards at the time of the incident, the lifeguards admitted that they failed to stop the children from using the pool.
Sofitel’s failure to prevent the children from using the swimming pool was the proximate cause of the injuries they sustained. To reiterate, by maintaining an attractive nuisance in its premises, it is respondent's responsibility to ensure that necessary precautions are in place to prevent children from being harmed. Respondent's failure to install the needed safeguards constitutes negligence for which it should be held liable for damages.